None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

nekom:None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

nekom:None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.

ginandbacon:Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?

You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.

nekom:None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

You can tell the defense is trending towards implausible white superiority, saying the victim was a bad person instead of proving the defendant's innocence.

FlashHarry:you mean like those "gangsta" pics that turned out to be a different trayvon martin?

There was a black comedian that did a great skit on the number of black people named Trayvon that had been shot in the past 6 months. That name is just bad luck. Like being named Stark on Game of Thrones.

Mrbogey:It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.

Just like raping a slutty girl.

Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

Three Crooked Squirrels:Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

Mrbogey:nekom: None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

It very well matters. If I shot dead a straight A student who was a choir boy on Sunday and a Boyscout on Saturday and never had a single disciplinary event people will doubt a claim that he attacked me. But if I shot dead a boy suspended from school for fighting with a history of petty theft and I only had defensive wounds, it makes for a pretty good claim of self-defense.

ginandbacon: Is that even English? And what the hell does it have to do with this article?

You're just upset that the case against Zimmerman is going poorly. It's odd though. Usually there's some bone to throw to both sides. The best the anti-Zimmerman crowd got was the prior incident with the police.

The anti-Zimmerman crowd? Pretty sure you mean the let's not murder teenagers for walking at night wearing a hoodie crowd

Tatsuma:Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.

Except, by law, it's irrelevant in either case (and the State hasn't asked to present any evidence to that effect). If Zimmerman assaulted someone in this particular manner, it might be evidence of a habit or modus operandi, but Zimmerman's team cannot (and has not) articulated a single legal reason why they should be allowed to impugn the character of the victim in a murder trial.

If they wanted the separate self-defense hearing, they should have taken it; they didn't because they knew they'd give up ANY chance of putting this nonsense in front of a jury. Now, they're trying to make the prosecution look good by showing a lack of solid understanding of the law.

Tatsuma:but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation.

Most of the stuff I have seen that the defense wants to introduce has more prejudicial value than probative value on that issue. Seems like it's mostly a bunch Facebook photos and whatnot. Granted, I'm not following this all that closely, but a Facebook photo of a gun or a pot plant or a text message conversation about purple drank is not meant to be probative. It is meant to prejudice the decision-maker.

nekom:I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.

So in court they "mistakenly" describe a video that they have in their possession as Trayvon video taping his friends beating up a homeless man, and it is not their fault? And they wait until Sunday to make release a correction to that statement they made in court on the previous Tuesday regarding a video they had for weeks?

You got to be either naive, dumb, or just plain intellectually dishonest to say that you don't believe that the defense intentionally made a false statement regarding the video in court because they knew it would hit the media like wildfire.

mattharvest:Except, by law, it's irrelevant in either case (and the State hasn't asked to present any evidence to that effect). If Zimmerman assaulted someone in this particular manner, it might be evidence of a habit or modus operandi, but Zimmerman's team cannot (and has not) articulated a single legal reason why they should be allowed to impugn the character of the victim in a murder trial.

This is a case of whether this was self-defense or not. It's absolutely relevant. That's why the judge is allowing them to present this as evidence.

Tatsuma:nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.

Tatsuma:Three Crooked Squirrels: Whether Martin was a bad dude does not matter. If he attacked Zimmerman, make the case. What the defense seems to be doing is trying to make Zimmerman's fear of Martin justified based on whether he was a bad dude. But Martin's past did not influence Zimmerman's actions, because Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's past. It had no bearing on Zimmerman's state of mind.

He was unaware of all this, yes, but if you can prove that Martin had a criminal and violent past, that makes it easier to argue that he initiated the confrontation. That's exactly what the other side are trying to do with Zimmerman as well.

This how I see it. If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine. But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

There will be winners, at least in their mind. The pro gun crowd. This case is like cat nip to them. If he walks, the SYG crowd will go bonkers. You can stalk someone, chase them down, confront them then take a punch or two and you can kill them and walk

Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?

Tatsuma:nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.

But if he were brought up on assault charges, he would NOT face the death penalty for that. Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Very possibly, we'll never know the whole truth. Was that a mistake? You bet! A certain degree of blame does certainly fall on Martin for making a few poor decisions, but nothing that he ought to have been killed for. Both parties made errors in judgment. The kid didn't need to die, and it's pretty sad. While I don't believe a murder charge is warranted, Zimmerman was WAY over-zealous.

There are all kinds of winners here. Think about how many revenge fantasies have been vicariously fulfilled. You can practically see people in some of these threads playing the role of Zimmerman in their full-length Travis Bickle mirrors.

coco ebert:Unless Trayvon Martin jumped on Zimmerman's car and forced him to get out, how could he be the one that initiated the confrontation? Doesn't the 9/11 call where the operator asks Zimmerman to stay in his car show who initiated what?

Well, just because you parked at the McDonald's and got out doesn't mean you ordered food. Now, if you went in observed, then went back out AND then an employee attacked you shoving a Big Mac down your throat, who is the aggressor?

I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

There will be winners, at least in their mind. The pro gun crowd. This case is like cat nip to them. If he walks, the SYG crowd will go bonkers. You can stalk someone, chase them down, confront them then take a punch or two and you can kill them and walk

And I wonder if there would be riots similar to the ones after the OJ case.

nekom:But if he were brought up on assault charges, he would NOT face the death penalty for that. Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Very possibly, we'll never know the whole truth. Was that a mistake? You bet! A certain degree of blame does certainly fall on Martin for making a few poor decisions, but nothing that he ought to have been killed for. Both parties made errors in judgment. The kid didn't need to die, and it's pretty sad. While I don't believe a murder charge is warranted, Zimmerman was WAY over-zealous.

Yeah I more or less agree with you. You'll notice I wasn't able to bring myself to type the words 'he deserved to die' either. It's more that Martin was justified in fearing for his life and defending himself (even with lethal force) than Martin had to die for it.

Tatsuma:nekom: I suspect he will, and he probably should under the law. I don't triumph in that in any way whatsoever, though. A young man is dead who didn't need to die and didn't deserve to die. There are no winners here at all.

I agree with this post, except for the 'didn't deserve to die'.

If he indeed initiated the assault on Zimmerman, was on top of him and hitting his head on the pavement, his actions absolutely justified with Zimmerman did.

The problem is that Zimmerman instigated it. He notified the authorities. The dispatcher told him to remain in the car. That ended his duty as a self proclaimed neighborhood watch. He decided to peruse a kid who had every right to be there.

If the kid wasn't doing anything illegal, such as destruction of property, or peeking in windows, Zimmerman had no right to confront him.

At the very least, he should face involuntary manslaughter for ending a fight he instigated.

Tatsuma:I_C_Weener: This how I see it. If you want to argue pure facts of that night, fine. But if you want to argue that Zimmerman had a shady past, then Martin's past comes in too.

Pretty much. You can't claim that one participant's past is relevant while saying we shouldn't speak of the other's. Not how it works.

The thing is to be used as evidence in court it has to have context. For example the judge ruled that the pictures and text from Trayvon's cellphone can be used if the defense can show them in some type of context relative to the case. They can't, so they aren't admissible. On the other hand Zimmerman's arrest record can be used because it is a court record documenting his behavior. Now if they had a juvenile record for Trayvon it would be admissible, but their is none. That is why the defense is releasing these pictures to the press and intentionally misrepresented the video. They know they aren't going to get it in at trial and are trying to influence the jury pool.

Darth_Lukecash:The problem is that Zimmerman instigated it. He notified the authorities. The dispatcher told him to remain in the car. That ended his duty as a self proclaimed neighborhood watch. He decided to peruse a kid who had every right to be there.

That's false. The police suggested to him to stay in the car, but he was under no legal obligation to.

Someone has a right to follow you in the street and look at what you're doing as long as they are not trespassing. This is not instigating anything.

Tatsuma:It's more that Martin was justified in fearing for his life and defending himself (even with lethal force) than Martin had to die for it.

That's exactly what a jury will have to determine. My understanding is that their law is fairly similar to ours in PA in that you have to demonstrate to a jury that at the precise moment the decision to use lethal force was made, any reasonable person would have felt that themselves or someone else was in danger of death or serious bodily harm. That's not going to be a very difficult bar to meet *IF* things are kept clinical. The prosecution's only hope really is to get the jury emotionally involved to a point where they overlook the letter of the law.

I don't see how the fark this should matter. IANAL but I cannot imagine the defense allowing the prosecution to paint Martin as an angel as it would be prejudicial to his client. Barring that, what the fark does it matter if Martin was the douchiest douche ever to douche or not?

nekom:None of this is the slightest bit relevant to the case. Was he a good person? Did he smoke weed? None of that matters. The question is whether or not a self defense claim is valid. It doesn't matter if he was a gangster or a choir boy.

Except that if they go for self defense, the first thing the prosecutor is going to say in his opening statement is "...then why didn't he use our Stand Your Ground law to prevent this from even going to trial?"

Well, diverting attention from the defendant worked for O.J. No way Simpson's defense team was going to stick with "OJ is innocent". Was much easier to throw up things like the LAPD farked up the investigation and Furman was racist.

I supposed digging up dirt on Zimmerman means that his lawyers may think they would have a hard time saying Zimmerman is innocent and has a good story to back it up.

I fail to understand what any of this matters. It's not like Zimmerman new anything about this guy the night he CHASED him down and MURDERED him for no reason. It reminds me of the Naked Gun joke when he was being awarded for killing his 100th drug dealer and he said "in all fairness the last two I happened to run over with my car, we realized he was a drug dealer after the fact."